Action figures liven campaign

Sporting military-issued khakis, standing one foot tall and armed with a knife, the John F. Kennedy GI Joe recently arrived at the pop culture nostalgia front to aid Hasbro toy manufacturers commemorate famous American military heroes and battles.

Can a better shot at pop culture immortality, in all its excess hype, be made? One becomes instantly recognizable because of their presence on aisle 57 of Wal-Mart or Target.

Cartoons and loud testosterone-filled commercials further propagate the figure’s popularity, making it a household name. Soon, second-rate milk-it-for-all-its-worth spin-offs appear, taking no quarter with ad campaigns — just like certain presidential candidates.

In a presidential election, where some pundits already know who’s going to win the closest race since the tortoise and the three-toed sloth raced, action figures may bring some excitement to a public that so desperately needs something to toy with.

First, these toys should, in no way, shape or form be called dolls. They should, however, receive the title ‘action figure,’ or in Al Gore’s molding, ‘inaction figure.’ Whether full of action or inaction, George W. Bush and Gore will appear in several different variations, perfect for collector nerds, who must own every single one.

The Bush variants, all of which will come with his trademark smirk and ears, each display a different side of him. First, there’s “Frat Daddy George,” dressed in his Yale fraternity colors, complete with paddle and C-average transcript. Second, there’s “Military George,” who comes with several changeable plastic snap on outfits: camo, greens and an invisible suit, since no records indicate any service that he actively participated in any documented mission. Lastly, there’s “The Candidate.” What makes this particular variant different is that George comes loaded with accessories, dressed in his black business suit and it even speaks. Armed with a cell phone to call his campaign advisors, clutching a mini almanac in his breast pocket for quick and easy reference when asked tough questions and a bar of 45-cent soap to cleanse his mouth when expletives spill out, he sings “of compassionate conservatism, or whatever that means.”

Gore, the inaction figure, could come in an entire army of variants but only two are action packed enough for store shelves: “The Shadowed Veep” and “Tree Hugger Al.” Al’s “Shadowed” figure comes with a light-absorbing Bill Clinton shadow. This shadow absorbs all light bouncing off Al, making him invisible, causing random phrases such as “I’m not like him” to sound from the darkness. Also, “Tree Hugger Al” comes with a saw to chop down trees needed for more paper work, and a low flow shower head which reduces water flow yet increases shower taking time, causing more water to be used and more taxes are collected. And, no, Bill Clinton is not included with either figure.

But wait! There’s more than just Gore and Bush.

Other lesser known, less popular action figures exist. Presumably these will sit on shelves collecting dust. There’s Ralph “I'm the Third Choice” Nader; Pat “No, I’m Not in the Christian Coalition’s Pocket” Buchanan; and a few other lesser knowns such as John Hagelin of the Natural Law Party, Libertarian Harry Browne and Constitution Party Howard Philips.

All figures will come with multi-posable limbs, ready to debate out of the box, exposing morals, virtues and a vision for a better America. In small barely readable print, the manufacturer will print the following safety warning: Keep out of reach of small children; if used in any act of effigy, please use parental supervision and common sense; after the 2000 election, the manufacturer is not responsible for any defects that may have occurred before, during or after campaigning and is non-refundable.

Patrick Harris is a sophomore graphic design major from Spring.
He can be reached at (p.j.harris@student.tcu.edu)..

Nobody can deny the fact that LaDainian Tomlinson’s record-breaking 1999 season meant a lot to the TCU football program. He shattered school records, carried his team to back-to-back Western Athletic Conference championships as well as repeat bowl game victories. In short, he brought national attention to the TCU football program.

As spring rolled around and LT’s name became recognizable along with other Heisman candidates, it was finally setting in that TCU was in the midst of an extraordinary athlete. Someday we may tell our kids that we were able to watch him in person when he was not only our star athlete, but our fellow student.

Returning to TCU this fall, LT was everywhere from billboards to store fronts and bumper stickers to T-shirts — right where the university wanted him to be.

Unfortunately, the contest for the Heisman honor is like so many other things these days, filled with politics and money.

Who better to be in the middle of these games but the university itself? TCU is getting the local and national attention it has bought and then some.

In fact, critics including the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and the premiere sports digest, Sports Illustrated, have made it a point to single out TCU and Tomlinson’s quest for the Heisman.
However, instead of concentrating on the abilities of LT, these news sources are attacking TCU’s campaign financing of Tomlinson.

The Aug. 21 issue of Sports Illustrated and later the Star-Telegram reported that TCU had spent $90,000 to fund Tomlinson’s bid for the Heisman.

Is this too much to spend for a single student? I emphasize student because that is the real reason we are all here, to be students, right?

Certainly, the university wouldn’t be spending $90,000 for one of our top students to win acclaim. But then again, it is not exactly spending the money as the media has made it out to be.

It’s not like TCU is using our tuition money for LaDainian’s Heisman bid; it saves our tuition for important things like Dodge Durango police cruisers.

In any case, the university hasn’t even admitted to spending $90,000 on the campaign. The only thing it has admitted is that all of the funding was privately raised. If this is the case, who cares how much they want to spend?

If there is an alumnus or alumna out there who has been fortunate enough to have found great financial success and wishes to give back to their alma mater to help recognize a star athlete, let them.

TCU wants Tomlinson to be known for his athletic ability, but they also want to use him to help boost the popularity of this university. With an Associated Press ranking of No. 20 and Tomlinson’s bid for the Heisman, TCU is slated to receive more television coverage than ever before.

That’s four quarters of free advertising, folks, which could potentially mean millions of dollars for TCU. If five students remember TCU from a couple of football games and then decide to look into it when it comes time for their college education, they may decide to come visit the school. After arriving they will find all of the same things about the university that made you and I want to attend TCU and become a Horned Frog.

In addition to the university’s entity as an institution of higher learning, we cannot forget that it is also a business. Tomlinson needs our school to help him become recognized and the university needs Tomlinson to help it become recognized.

TCU has the opportunity of a lifetime this football season, just as Tomlinson will every time he takes the field. Everyone would be a fool if they didn’t take advantage of these opportunities and use them to the benefit of our university, its students, our faculty, and yes, even our star athletes.

James Zwilling is a sophomore news-editorial journalism major from Phoenix, Ariz.
He can be reached at (james_zwilling@usa.net)..

PI’ll never forget the first time my good friend Mike told me about Napster.com.

“It’s the greatest computer program ever,” he said, with what passes among college students for grave conviction.

Well, once I experienced it for myself, I was quite inclined to agree with my buddy’s sentiments.
You can either go to your local music store and shell out $20 for that new song you just heard on the radio, or just go online and get it for free.

Better still, Napster allows you to connect to people out there who can hook you up with whatever live or rare recordings from your favorite bands the record companies are too dumb or greedy to release. Two and a quarter centuries after Adam Smith wrote “The Wealth of Nations,” and we finally get to experience a truly “free” market.

Predictably, the Recording Industry Association of America has stepped in to play Gargamel to the Napster users’ Smurfs. Call me Grouchy Smurf.

The RIAA, claiming loss of copyright, is trying to shut Napster down and stop all our fun. Thankfully, Napster has better lawyers than O.J., and has been able to fend off these ridiculous attacks in the form of appeals to higher courts.

In an attempt to dignify their argument, most Napster supporters will tell you that this is a “free speech” or “freedom of access to technology” issue, and not about people enjoying the privilege of getting free music.

Though I agree that a shutdown of Napster will set an ominous precedent for limiting people’s access to technology, I would like to assert that the opportunity to get your favorite tunes for free is reason enough for the Napster-inspired downloading to continue uninhibited.

The fact of the matter is the record companies have priced themselves out of the game.

Go to Wherehouse Music — it’s hard to find a compact disc that doesn’t cost $17.99. And how much does it cost to produce a CD? Not much more than a couple bucks from recording studio to shopping mall sales rack. It seems, my friends, that we’re getting ripped off yet again.

Throughout last year, the RIAA has waged the bulk of the courtroom battles against Napster, while the artists it distributes have attacked Napster in the press. Lars Ulrich calls it “stealing,” Scott Stapp claims to have lost vast quantities of money to Napster, and Dr. Dre seems about ready to bust a cap in somebody.

The sad news is that if these artists are losing any money at all, it’s at the hands of the record companies. Just as CD’s cost very little to actually produce, labels only give a very small percentage of the royalties they receive from sales to the artists themselves. The artists are getting ripped off, but it’s not the kids using Napster doing the ripping.

I may be too much of an optimist when it comes to human nature, but I think that if a new, full-length CD costs $5, then there’d be no need for Napster. I think that simply regaining the cost of production, paying the artists what they are already paying them now and receiving a nice, reasonable profit should be considered a job well done for the labels. But when albums are being sold at three to four times fair market value, then it is by all means acceptable for people to go out and find other ways of procuring their music.

Unfortunately, I doubt that the music industry is going to start looking out for its customers best interests all by themselves, so let’s hope that Napster wins their legal battle, and let’s hope it undermines the entire recording industry so that, embracing technology, we can start all over again. If you want to find out how you can help, go to www.napster.com, and tell ‘em Grouchy sent you.

Daniel Bramlette is a senior radio-TV-film major from Ogden, UT.
He can be reached at (dcbramlette@yahoo.com).

Republican Presidential nominee George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore have been at each other’s throats in discussing almost every political issue. This week they have been at each other’s throats dealing with personal ridicule.

Instead of getting a better understanding of Gore’s prescription drug plan or Bush’s Medicare proposals, voters were fed a week’s worth of name-calling from the candidates. Instigated by the dislike of each other’s selection for debate format, both Bush and Gore have de-emphasized the issues of the campaign to devote more time to verbally abusing each other.

Bush’s camp started an advertising campaign accusing Gore of lying about when he would meet Bush for joint television appearances.

Gore’s camp bounced back, charging Bush with being scared of a big television audience for formal debates by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates.

Bush even took the name-calling to another tier, letting it spill over onto journalists. Just before a campaign speech in Illinois, Bush said to his running mate Dick Cheney: “There’s Adam Clymer, major-league asshole from the New York Times.”

Although the incident in Illinois was considered an accident, it is an example of how ridiculous this and other political campaigns can get if the current pace of unethical campaigning continues.

Politicians, especially the 2000 presidential candidates, have seemingly forgotten campaign ethics. It is not limited to money and politics or to telling the truth. It involves engaging in the promotion of critical discussion and the evaluation of the major issues.

But this week, the voters missed out on the candidates’ views on the economy, Social Security and the military. And uninformed voters quickly turn into apathetic citizens, whom usually don’t vote at all.